El Luchador
-
Posts
1,407 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Forums
Articles
Teams
College Commitments
Rankings
Authors
Jobs
Store
Everything posted by El Luchador
-
Only within the limitations of the constitution. -
Arbitrary number. Literally would out law 99% of all guns, and solve nothing.
-
So do you want to prohibit diesel fuel, or fertilizer?
-
You prefer other poisons? Again you could never even come close to regulating everything that could be used as a poison. Phosgene gas can easily be made by anyone. So again you seek regulations that would be completely worthless. Forcing someone to change their weapons will never prevent any crime.
-
WMDs are not even remotely relevant. They are indiscriminate and uncontrollable. But let's be realistic, explosives are controlled as are chemicals, but it would take minimal effort to construct a significant explosive weapon. It happens all over the world in terrorism attacks. Where there is a will there will always be a way. Timothy McVeigh would not have been stopped by regulations, nor would Darrel Brooks have been. All that you can do is change up the method.
-
A Representative who wants to ban teaching unproven science, or one who wants to protect pedophiles? https://dailycaller.com/2023/04/26/minnesota-bill-could-make-pedophiles-a-protected-class/
-
You are trying to link WMDs and bearable arms, that is intellectually dishonest.
-
Are they available? Let's be realistic. BTW a 40 Oz gun is way to heavy to carry, so I don't think a 100 lb weapon is going to take over the market place. Most countries don't have nukes, and I doubt they would be affordable.
-
Is a nuke a bearable weapon?
-
The coury is supposed to apply the constitution as written and intended. The intent is clear, anything else is judicial activism.
-
Not even debatable what they intended
-
“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
-
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
-
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
-
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
-
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
-
Specific to the militia, meaning well organized. There is no legitimate debate as to their intentions.
-
They don't usually outright say it, but incrementally it's the goal. Obama directly said he didn't want to take guns away but when asked what country he would model US gun laws after he chose a country that took away everyone's guns. They follow the playbook of those who disarmed their citizens. Same catch phrases same strategies.
-
So you do admit you want to take guns away. Switzerland has a lower murder rate, I propose their model.
-
What difference does it make? We've already dismissed thier solution because it doesn't fit our narrative. Why would we follow the example the world's foremost experts on security and anti terrorism when we can smugly dismiss it as stupid based on our own bias?
-
Oh so you just wanted to share your opinion, but not discuss it.
-
You know they do this in Israel?
-
And close to a good source of legal weed.
-
We have limits. We also have rights. Freedom requires responsibility. If you take guns away you will be as successful as the war on drugs and the people will be victims at a much higher rate. We know this from the huge amount of self defense uses of guns that will result in more harm not less when taken away. We also know a government that doesn't fear it citizens doesn't need to consider them. You will be ruled not represented.
